Anna Iskandarian
April 15, 2008
Excel Homework
Working with candidates and money for campaigns can be really tricky and complicated and so using the date that we received, I have created a basis for a story covering campaigns and especially donations for advertising. Television advertising donations alone cost $26,312,093; that is $26 Million dollars just for tv advertising! I know this isn’t hard hitting news because everyone knows this, but I think it can be a fascinating thing to compare the candidates that received the most money for tv advertising and how successful they were in the long run compared to the candidates that spent the most money on yard signs. Peterson having spent about $11 Million will have a significantly different rate of success compared to say, Smith who spent $1.7 Million. My guess is that just looking at the numbers, Peterson’s chances of a successful campaign will be a lot higher than others’.
Another important story idea that I think can be expanded is where the money for the campaigns is coming from. Looking at the broad picture, Save Our Planet donated about $20 million dollars and the Teachers Union with $12 million. First, for the teachers Union, where is this money coming from and their median donation being $22,000, how do the politician’s campaign promises for education affect the donations. For my story, this is the angle I would take- find a teacher’s union that had donated to let’s say McDonald, and find out where their money is coming from and why they are supporting these politicians with yard signs and street posters. Same for the reasons of education policies of candidates, another interesting area would be the environmental stand that politicians are taking. It would be a good question to ask, whether politicians tend to lean a certain way on an issue to receive more money because the data shows that the top eight largest contributions were made by Save the Planet, with the highest being $1 million for television advertising for Adams. It would be a good idea to look at Adams’ campaign and figure out where he stands on the environment, recycling programs, and even global warming. If there is an obvious connection to his campaign stand and the people that are donating, a good investigator, let’s say like me, would spend time with Adams and see if environmental issues is really something that he is leading to or if it is a tactic to get money from a rich Save the Planet Organization. Then if there is a connection, I would go to Save the Planet and talk to them, asking them where they get their money from and how they can afford $1million dollars on one candidate for one medium. Once that is answered, I would ask them why. Why him? Why that much money? Why spend money on advertising when it can go to actually saving the planet? Those kinds of why question.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Election Results Are In!
Lauren Ruef
Electronic Journalism
April 14th, 2008
Math/Excel Story
Candidates Adams, McDonald and Peterson have been declared the winners of the 2000 elections, leaving opponents Smith, Thurston and Johnson without the vote. Campaign contributions provided by the Police Union, Save Our Planet Group and the Teachers Union were utilized by the candidates for the purposes of public relations consulting, direct mail piece, street posters, radio advertising, T.V. advertising and yard signs.
Peterson was led to victory with a total of $11,931,499 in donations, followed by McDonald with $9,316,093 and Adams with a total of $8,607,008. Candidate Thurston came in 4th place with $3,599,413 in funding followed by Johnson with $2,073,212 and Smith in last place with $1,722,877.In comparison to the 1996 totals, the 2000 election candidates fared an overall 28% increase in funding from the former $29,153,595 figure recorded. Candidates also experienced significant increases in campaign contributions from the previous election, apart from Smith who weathered a loss of funding by 52%.
The highest dollar amount in overall campaign contributions was devoted to TV Advertising at $20,976,906 followed by Public Relations Consulting at $7,210,942. These top two types of advertisement accounted for nearly 75% of the total funds offered as campaign contributions. Each interest group donated an average of 44% of their total contributions to a single candidate, which was different for each group. The Save our Planet Interest group donated the highest amount to Candidate Peterson for a total of $7,950,207, about 40% of total donations which led him ultimately to victory. The Police Union donated the largest portion of their funds to Thurston at a total of $2,552,536, almost 48% of total donations. Finally the Teacher’s Union donated the highest amount to McDonald with $5,217,625, about 44% of total donations.
A comparison between Smith’s campaign and Peterson’s revealed that direct mail and yard signs were utilized the most, unlike Peterson whose campaign consisted mostly of t.v. advertising and public relations consulting. These were the two most expensive options for campaigning, but also those which will likely led the top three candidates to victory.
Electronic Journalism
April 14th, 2008
Math/Excel Story
Candidates Adams, McDonald and Peterson have been declared the winners of the 2000 elections, leaving opponents Smith, Thurston and Johnson without the vote. Campaign contributions provided by the Police Union, Save Our Planet Group and the Teachers Union were utilized by the candidates for the purposes of public relations consulting, direct mail piece, street posters, radio advertising, T.V. advertising and yard signs.
Peterson was led to victory with a total of $11,931,499 in donations, followed by McDonald with $9,316,093 and Adams with a total of $8,607,008. Candidate Thurston came in 4th place with $3,599,413 in funding followed by Johnson with $2,073,212 and Smith in last place with $1,722,877.In comparison to the 1996 totals, the 2000 election candidates fared an overall 28% increase in funding from the former $29,153,595 figure recorded. Candidates also experienced significant increases in campaign contributions from the previous election, apart from Smith who weathered a loss of funding by 52%.
The highest dollar amount in overall campaign contributions was devoted to TV Advertising at $20,976,906 followed by Public Relations Consulting at $7,210,942. These top two types of advertisement accounted for nearly 75% of the total funds offered as campaign contributions. Each interest group donated an average of 44% of their total contributions to a single candidate, which was different for each group. The Save our Planet Interest group donated the highest amount to Candidate Peterson for a total of $7,950,207, about 40% of total donations which led him ultimately to victory. The Police Union donated the largest portion of their funds to Thurston at a total of $2,552,536, almost 48% of total donations. Finally the Teacher’s Union donated the highest amount to McDonald with $5,217,625, about 44% of total donations.
A comparison between Smith’s campaign and Peterson’s revealed that direct mail and yard signs were utilized the most, unlike Peterson whose campaign consisted mostly of t.v. advertising and public relations consulting. These were the two most expensive options for campaigning, but also those which will likely led the top three candidates to victory.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Contributions Determine Winners
Emily Atkins
4.15.08
Excel Story
WRI 313
Cervantes
Contributions Determine Winners
The 2000 elections for San Diego City Council were not a race between candidates, but a race between independent contributors. The Teacher’s Union, Police Union and Save Our Planet Group were the major players to watch as they donated millions of dollars in the form of street posters, yard signs and TV advertising.
Not surprisingly, the candidates who received the most money in contributions were the winners. Peterson, Adams and McDonald received over 8 million dollars each. Peterson had the highest amount of contributions, totaling in at $11,931,499. He was victorious once again in the elections, beating out his lesser-funded competitors.
Now, what’s wrong with this scenario? The fact that the outcome of an election can be controlled by money from outside contributors should be a serious red flag to the public.
There was a clear gap in campaign contributions between the winners and the losers of the elections. While each of the winners raised more than $8 million, none of the losers managed to raise more than $4 million. Thurston, Johnson and Smith had a combined total of contributions of $7,395,502. Adams, who received $8.6 million, the lowest amount of contributions out of the top three, still received a higher amount of campaign contributions than the combined totals of Thurston, Johnson and Smith.
The amount of money being spent on political campaigns could benefit the city elsewhere. The total spent for the 2000 elections was up from the 1996 elections, coming in at nearly $38 million. One look at the interest groups begs the question, where else could this money go?
The Police Union spent the least, coming in just over $5 million. The Teacher’s Union spent $12 million, giving nearly half of their contributions to McDonald, who won his election. However, the most influential group was the Save Our Planet Group, who spent $20 million in total campaign contributions, contributing around 50 percent of the top candidates’ total expenditures. The Save Our Planet Group was also largely responsible for the TV advertising for McDonald, Peterson and Adams.
In fact, TV advertising accounted for the largest amount of money out of all the campaign contributions, coming in at $21 million. Peterson, McDonald and Adams spent over half of their total campaign money on TV advertising. Thurston and Johnson didn’t spend any money on TV advertising, while Smith spent a paltry $1.2 million. As this was the most popular form of campaigning, there’s no doubt that the lack of funds restricting Thurston, Johnson and Smith’s TV time negatively affected their chances of winning.
The amount spent on TV advertising increased dramatically from the 1996 elections. In 1996, most of the campaign contributions went to direct mail pieces, while the 2000 elections saw a meager $2 million spent on mailers.
Clearly, money is speaking louder than candidates in the San Diego City Council elections. The question is, when will the public speak louder than interest groups and their campaign contributions?
Money Money Money
Heather McClure, Excel Story
In the end, it was the campaign contributions that spoke loudest in the San Diego City Council elections of 2000; the candidates with the highest campaign contributions, not shockingly, came out with the victory.
With three spots to fill, six candidates were vying for their spot on the city council. The top three, not shockingly, were those with the highest expenditures—expenditures of more than $8 million for the total campaign. Adams, McDonald and Peterson won the candidacy. Each had significant contributions from the Teachers’ Union and the Save Our Planet Organization, which had the largest donations for the entire election, with $32 million in total giving.
The Teachers’ Union gave a hefty $12 million for which close to half was given to McDonald’s campaign. The Save Our Planet Organization gave the largest donations, accounting for a total of $20 million for which the largest portion was given to Peterson. Both McDonald and Peterson won.
While each of the winning candidates accumulated more than $8 million individually, the bottom three candidates each raised less than $4 million each. Peterson had the most funding, with $11.3 million. Next in line was McDonald with $9.3. The third highest contributions came from Adams, who brought in $8.6 million in funding. Johnson, Smith and Thurston—the bottom three candidates—accumulated a combined $7.4 million.
When compared to the previous election period in 1996, two of the most significant changes were the vast increase in overall donations and the overall use of money donated. While direct mail pieces were the most popular form of advertising for candidates in the 1996 election, television commercials proved quite beneficial to the victors in the 2000 race.
Each of the three winners spent more than half of their total funds on the pricey production of television advertising, for a total of $20 million in costs. More so, more than half of all the campaign funds of all six candidates—approximately 56 percent in total—went to television marketing. Smith’s decision to spend only $1.2 million on such advertising may have had an impact on the final results, for which he did not prove victorious. And for Thurston and Johnson, who did not use television advertising at all, the same might also be true.
In the end, it was the campaign contributions that spoke loudest in the San Diego City Council elections of 2000; the candidates with the highest campaign contributions, not shockingly, came out with the victory.
With three spots to fill, six candidates were vying for their spot on the city council. The top three, not shockingly, were those with the highest expenditures—expenditures of more than $8 million for the total campaign. Adams, McDonald and Peterson won the candidacy. Each had significant contributions from the Teachers’ Union and the Save Our Planet Organization, which had the largest donations for the entire election, with $32 million in total giving.
The Teachers’ Union gave a hefty $12 million for which close to half was given to McDonald’s campaign. The Save Our Planet Organization gave the largest donations, accounting for a total of $20 million for which the largest portion was given to Peterson. Both McDonald and Peterson won.
While each of the winning candidates accumulated more than $8 million individually, the bottom three candidates each raised less than $4 million each. Peterson had the most funding, with $11.3 million. Next in line was McDonald with $9.3. The third highest contributions came from Adams, who brought in $8.6 million in funding. Johnson, Smith and Thurston—the bottom three candidates—accumulated a combined $7.4 million.
When compared to the previous election period in 1996, two of the most significant changes were the vast increase in overall donations and the overall use of money donated. While direct mail pieces were the most popular form of advertising for candidates in the 1996 election, television commercials proved quite beneficial to the victors in the 2000 race.
Each of the three winners spent more than half of their total funds on the pricey production of television advertising, for a total of $20 million in costs. More so, more than half of all the campaign funds of all six candidates—approximately 56 percent in total—went to television marketing. Smith’s decision to spend only $1.2 million on such advertising may have had an impact on the final results, for which he did not prove victorious. And for Thurston and Johnson, who did not use television advertising at all, the same might also be true.
Money Contributions Pay-Off in Elections!
Ashly McGlone
WRI313
Math / Excel Story
Close analysis of the 2000 election campaign statistics show that money contributions pay-off when all is said and done.
Peterson, McDonald and Adams all had the highest amount of money contributed to them in 2000 ($11,931,499; $9,316,092; and $8,607,007 respectively) and they also won the election that year.
Two of the three candidates, both Adams and McDonald, had at least a 75% increase in Indy Exp from 1996 stats, with 82% and 75% respectively. All three candidates who lost had less than 50% increase in Indy Exp, with Smith even dropping a staggering 52%. Johnson had 18% and Thurston had 49%. The shocking win is Peterson with the meager 5% increase in Indy Exp. The total percentage change for all candidates was an increase of 28%.
From 1996 to 2000the Police Union had an 8% increase in contribution. The Save Our Planet Group had a whopping 106% increase and the Teachers’ Union had a 63% increase. Grand Total percentage increase for Interest Groups was a significant 70%.
In 2000 the Police Union spent 34%, or $1,821,399 (the highest percentage of their total expenditures) on public relations consulting. The Police Union spent the least amount $222,222, or 4% of their total costs on radio ads. Total spending for the Police Union in 2000 was $5,312,691.
In 2000, the Save our Planet Group in contrast spent the majority of its money on TV advertising with $14,058,011 or 70% of its total $19,967,553. The Save Our Planet Group spent the least amount of money on radio ads as well with only $223,207 or 1%.
Finally in 2000, the Teachers’ Union spent their majority, $6,918,895 or 58% of its money on TV ads, and the least amount, $634,172 or 5% on yard signs.
The Police Union spent a total of $10,047,288 on campaigns, with a majority of 25% going to Thurston. The Save Our Planet Group spent a total of $34,957,785, with 23% going to Peterson. The Teachers Union spent a total of $20,888,125, with 25% going to McDonald.
With the exception of Thurston, both other candidates highly endorsed by the interest groups won.
The average contribution of any kind in 2000 to Adams was $153,697. The median amount for Adams was $22,589 and the most frequent amount for Adams was $16,877.
The average contribution to Johnson was $74,043; the median amount was $20,752, and the most common amount was also $20,752.
The average contribution to McDonald was $102,375; the median amount was $27,228, and the most common amount was $ 15,792.
The average contribution to Peterson was $130,318; the median was $25,722 and the most common amount was $15,414.
The average amount contributed to Smith was $120,181; the median was $22,630 and the most common amount was $15,414.
The average amount contributed to Thurston in 2000 was $85,700; the median was $46,304 and the most common amount was $55,667.
The total average for all of the contributions toward candidates was $115,684; the median was $24,548 and the most common donation overall was $15,414.
While both Adams and Peterson had two of the highest average contributions, Smith’s average superseded the third winner McDonald’s average. Surprisingly Thurston’s median contribution is the highest, with McDonald and Peterson following. The leader for the most common amount for contribution is again Thurston, followed by Johnson and Adams.
Data Story -- Nathan Scharn
The candidates who received the most generous funding were the enjoyed the most success in the 2008 San Diego City Council.
Adams, McDonald and Peterson, all of whom received more than $8m in campaign funding were elected. Johnson, Smith and Thurstan, who each got fewer than $4m, lost the race.
The interest group Save Our Planet Group had the deepest pockets, funding more than half of Adams’ nearly $9m dollar campaign.
Peterson, who worked on approximately $12m in funding, received campaign contributions from Save Our Planet Group, Teachers’ Union and Police Union was also funded generously by SOPG, accruing nearly $8m from the group for PR consulting, t.v. advertising and a radio advertisement.
Smith was given only $1.7, less than one tenth of what Peterson spent.
Being in the top 50% of the funding spectrum – the higher end – made candidates 100% more likely to be elected than their less adequately funded competitors.
Save Our Planet Group contributed 53% of the winning candidates total of $29.9m in campaign funding, making SOPG the most influential group for candidate election.
SOPG increased its campaign contributions by 105% from the 1996 election to the 2000 election.
The organization gave the top three candidates more than $16m; however, it contributed fewer than $4m to the losing candidates. The winners received four times more funding from SOPG than did the losers.
Money and TV Speak
Bethany Leach
Both in the 1996 and 2000 elections, there has been a common theme: campaign contributions mean victory.
There now exists a law that limits money contributions to political candidates to a few hundred dollars per election. However, there is no limit to the number of independent expenditures, or campaign gifts, such as direct mail pieces, TV advertising and yard signs, that a political candidate can accept.
The Police Union, Save Our Planet Group, and the Teacher’s
More than 50 percent of the total independent expenditures by the three interest groups was spend on TV advertising. Peterson, who received more than $11 million in the last two elections, used more than half of it on TV advertising. Similarly, McDonalds was gifted $9 million and used half of it on TV commercials. And
The losing candidates, Johnson, Smith, and Thurston, received $2.1, $1.7, and $3.6 million, respectively. Relatively little of their money was spent on TV advertising because the total expenditures combined among the three losing candidates added up to less than what Peterson received.
Suffice it to say the Save Our Planet Group, which spent almost $20 million in independent expenditures, knows the power money can have over an election. The three candidates that the interest group supported the strongest this year were the three candidates who won. There is no explanation, though, for having doubled the amount spent on independent expenditures between 1996 and 2000.
It can be concluded, though, that in the political realm, money and TV advertising speak.Two elections, one conclusion
Rose Creasman
Though four years apart, the 1996 and 2000 elections prove one common theme in politics: Money talks, sometimes even louder than the candidates.
The two consecutive elections highlighted the influence of money in the election outcome. As in 1996, Petersen received the most money in independent expenditures with roughly $11.3 million, with McDonalds and Adams coming close with contributions totaling $9.3 and $8.6.
Just like in 1996, the top three candidates with the most money spent in independent expenditures came in first in the elections. Three main groups contributed to the six candidates’ campaigns: the Police Union, the Teachers’ Union, and the Save Our Planet Group. The latter spent the most in 1996, contributing $9.7 million to candidates. The single largest donation for any candidate totaled approximately $1,075,837 and was, not surprisingly, contributed by the Save the Planet Group.
The two election periods reflect the changes in political campaigning while supporting the notion that more money equals more popularity and consequently, more votes. The most common purpose for contribution in 1996 was direct mail pieces, while the 2000 elections clearly show the rising popularity of TV and radio advertising. In fact, roughly 56 percent of all contributions were used in TV advertising.
In particular, Petersen’s use of TV advertising seems directly proportional to his success in the elections—about half of his earned money was devoted to TV advertising. Much less emphasis was placed upon direct mailings and yard signs.
Of the three losing candidates, Johnson, Smith and Thurston, Johnson received the least money with roughly $1.8 million. The three winners, in contrast, spent a combined $20 million on TV ads.
Political underdogs, beware. It seems that dollars and TV commercials really do buy the vote.
Though four years apart, the 1996 and 2000 elections prove one common theme in politics: Money talks, sometimes even louder than the candidates.
The two consecutive elections highlighted the influence of money in the election outcome. As in 1996, Petersen received the most money in independent expenditures with roughly $11.3 million, with McDonalds and Adams coming close with contributions totaling $9.3 and $8.6.
Just like in 1996, the top three candidates with the most money spent in independent expenditures came in first in the elections. Three main groups contributed to the six candidates’ campaigns: the Police Union, the Teachers’ Union, and the Save Our Planet Group. The latter spent the most in 1996, contributing $9.7 million to candidates. The single largest donation for any candidate totaled approximately $1,075,837 and was, not surprisingly, contributed by the Save the Planet Group.
The two election periods reflect the changes in political campaigning while supporting the notion that more money equals more popularity and consequently, more votes. The most common purpose for contribution in 1996 was direct mail pieces, while the 2000 elections clearly show the rising popularity of TV and radio advertising. In fact, roughly 56 percent of all contributions were used in TV advertising.
In particular, Petersen’s use of TV advertising seems directly proportional to his success in the elections—about half of his earned money was devoted to TV advertising. Much less emphasis was placed upon direct mailings and yard signs.
Of the three losing candidates, Johnson, Smith and Thurston, Johnson received the least money with roughly $1.8 million. The three winners, in contrast, spent a combined $20 million on TV ads.
Political underdogs, beware. It seems that dollars and TV commercials really do buy the vote.
Nicole's Excel Story
Nicole Andelfinger
Electronic Journalism
Professor Cervantes
April 15, 2008
Excel Story
It appears that money can indeed buy you happiness – or at least a political position. In the 2000 race, out of the six candidates running for the three positions open, the three that had the most financial backing found themselves in the winner’s circle.
Adams, McDonald, and Peterson, all with expenditures over eight million for their total campaign, won their candidacy. Not only were the victor’s budgets one-third bigger overall than the defeated Thurston, Smith, and Johnson, but they received more financial backing from the Police Union, Teachers’ Union, and Save our Planet group.
Save Our Planet had the largest amount of donations this election with $20 million, and consequently, helped lead its favored candidate, Peterson, to victory. The Teachers’ Union, with a budget of around $12 million, also shot McDonald into victory by donating around two-fifths of its budget to McDonald. The Police Union’s small budget of $5.3 million was not enough to help launch Thurston into political power, despite being the source of 71% of Thurston’s budget.
Total spending among the three organizations grew this election, with a total expenditure going from $22 million worth of donations in 1996 to $37 million in 2000. The total money used in the candidate’s individual campaigns did not have as high a rise however, and barely expanded by a third from last year’s total of $29.1 million.
Representative who were not supported well by the Save our Planet group or Teachers’ Union (receiving under 10 percent of each group’s budget) consequently did not become elected. Any candidate who relied on one organization for over 70 percent of their expenditures (once again, this being Thurston, Smith, and Johnson) lost as well.
The use of television also helped factor who won the 2000 elections. TV advertising helped Adams, McDonald, and Peterson in their win in 2000. Over three-fourths of Adam’s budget, almost two-thirds of McDonald’s budget, and over half of Peterson’s budget went to creating television ads for their campaigns. Over fifty percent of total campaigning funds from all six candidates were used on television ads, and all three candidates who won spent a combined total of almost $20 million. Smith spent $1.2 million, while Thurston and Johnson didn’t spend any money on television ads.
Peterson, who had the biggest budget, spent the most money on every type of campaigning except for direct mail pieces. He also had the lowest change in budget, where as Adams and McDonald both achieved victory by increasing their budgets by nearly double from what they spent in 1996.
Electronic Journalism
Professor Cervantes
April 15, 2008
Excel Story
It appears that money can indeed buy you happiness – or at least a political position. In the 2000 race, out of the six candidates running for the three positions open, the three that had the most financial backing found themselves in the winner’s circle.
Adams, McDonald, and Peterson, all with expenditures over eight million for their total campaign, won their candidacy. Not only were the victor’s budgets one-third bigger overall than the defeated Thurston, Smith, and Johnson, but they received more financial backing from the Police Union, Teachers’ Union, and Save our Planet group.
Save Our Planet had the largest amount of donations this election with $20 million, and consequently, helped lead its favored candidate, Peterson, to victory. The Teachers’ Union, with a budget of around $12 million, also shot McDonald into victory by donating around two-fifths of its budget to McDonald. The Police Union’s small budget of $5.3 million was not enough to help launch Thurston into political power, despite being the source of 71% of Thurston’s budget.
Total spending among the three organizations grew this election, with a total expenditure going from $22 million worth of donations in 1996 to $37 million in 2000. The total money used in the candidate’s individual campaigns did not have as high a rise however, and barely expanded by a third from last year’s total of $29.1 million.
Representative who were not supported well by the Save our Planet group or Teachers’ Union (receiving under 10 percent of each group’s budget) consequently did not become elected. Any candidate who relied on one organization for over 70 percent of their expenditures (once again, this being Thurston, Smith, and Johnson) lost as well.
The use of television also helped factor who won the 2000 elections. TV advertising helped Adams, McDonald, and Peterson in their win in 2000. Over three-fourths of Adam’s budget, almost two-thirds of McDonald’s budget, and over half of Peterson’s budget went to creating television ads for their campaigns. Over fifty percent of total campaigning funds from all six candidates were used on television ads, and all three candidates who won spent a combined total of almost $20 million. Smith spent $1.2 million, while Thurston and Johnson didn’t spend any money on television ads.
Peterson, who had the biggest budget, spent the most money on every type of campaigning except for direct mail pieces. He also had the lowest change in budget, where as Adams and McDonald both achieved victory by increasing their budgets by nearly double from what they spent in 1996.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
by Matthew Gilson
It pays to make money. While that might sound obvious, it’s also true.
In the 2000 election, the final results could be predicted based on the total worth of the independent expenditures made in the name of each candidate. All of the candidates with victories in the election racked up over $8 million apiece. No one on the losing side had over $4 million spent for them.
Adams, McDonald and Peterson, who raised roughly $8.6 million, $9.3 million and $11.3 million, respectively, were the three that landed spots in the winner’s circle. Johnson, Smith and Thurston brought in a combined $7.4 million, still over a million short of Adams’ total alone.
Independent expenditures are slightly different from regular donations. Instead of giving money directly to candidates, groups or individuals provide a product or a service to a candidate and pick up the tab for that project. Some common ideas include making posters or distributing direct-mailings. All of the independent expenditures made for the six candidates in question were provided by three interest groups: the Police Union, the Save Our Planet Group and the Teachers’ Union.
There is no conclusive evidence that gathering more money in independent expenditures produces campaign wins – it is possible that the victorious candidates were given more money because they were already more popular and would have won anyway.
However, one factor did appear to have an unquestionable effect on the outcome of the races – TV
Fifty-six percent of the total independent expenditure money was devoted to TV advertisements, and for good reason. Altogether, the three winning candidates had 28 commercials produced for them. The losers had two.
The average cost of the TV advertising expenditures hovered just below $700,000, nearly four times the cost of the next most expensive category. If all of the money of the three losing candidates had been diverted to TV, still only 10 advertisements could have been made.
Large donations enable expensive projects, and the most expensive – TV advertising – seems to lead directly to votes. As can be clearly seen in the results of this election, it’s tough for the little guy to stand up to big bucks.
The Save Our Planet Group contributed the most money – almost $20 million – and the three candidates that it supported the strongest all won. Not surprisingly, the Save Our Planet Group spent more than twice as much on TV advertisements that the other two groups combined.
The independent expenditures clearly exhibited a typical final rush. From March through October, about $16 million was spent. However, in the week before the election (November 2-8), the groups contributed nearly $21 million. All of the direct mailings were sent out in March and all of the TV spots aired in that final week before the vote.
It pays to make money. While that might sound obvious, it’s also true.
In the 2000 election, the final results could be predicted based on the total worth of the independent expenditures made in the name of each candidate. All of the candidates with victories in the election racked up over $8 million apiece. No one on the losing side had over $4 million spent for them.
Adams, McDonald and Peterson, who raised roughly $8.6 million, $9.3 million and $11.3 million, respectively, were the three that landed spots in the winner’s circle. Johnson, Smith and Thurston brought in a combined $7.4 million, still over a million short of Adams’ total alone.
Independent expenditures are slightly different from regular donations. Instead of giving money directly to candidates, groups or individuals provide a product or a service to a candidate and pick up the tab for that project. Some common ideas include making posters or distributing direct-mailings. All of the independent expenditures made for the six candidates in question were provided by three interest groups: the Police Union, the Save Our Planet Group and the Teachers’ Union.
There is no conclusive evidence that gathering more money in independent expenditures produces campaign wins – it is possible that the victorious candidates were given more money because they were already more popular and would have won anyway.
However, one factor did appear to have an unquestionable effect on the outcome of the races – TV
Fifty-six percent of the total independent expenditure money was devoted to TV advertisements, and for good reason. Altogether, the three winning candidates had 28 commercials produced for them. The losers had two.
The average cost of the TV advertising expenditures hovered just below $700,000, nearly four times the cost of the next most expensive category. If all of the money of the three losing candidates had been diverted to TV, still only 10 advertisements could have been made.
Large donations enable expensive projects, and the most expensive – TV advertising – seems to lead directly to votes. As can be clearly seen in the results of this election, it’s tough for the little guy to stand up to big bucks.
The Save Our Planet Group contributed the most money – almost $20 million – and the three candidates that it supported the strongest all won. Not surprisingly, the Save Our Planet Group spent more than twice as much on TV advertisements that the other two groups combined.
The independent expenditures clearly exhibited a typical final rush. From March through October, about $16 million was spent. However, in the week before the election (November 2-8), the groups contributed nearly $21 million. All of the direct mailings were sent out in March and all of the TV spots aired in that final week before the vote.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Spencer's Excel Story
In an apparition of the 1996 election, Adams, McDonald, and Peterson won back-to-back elections. This likely comes as no surprise to most, who might have seen this coming due to several factors, the primary being campaign contributions. As in ’96, the three candidates with the most money earned in contributions won the election. Adams and McDonald closed the gap on Peterson for the most money earned, but Peterson still prevailed for the second straight time.
Peterson focused his campaign on television advertisement, spending $6,387,754 of his earned $11,931,499 on TV ads. He also focused his efforts toward public relations counseling, on which he spent nearly 30 percent of his budget. The candidate devoted about 17 percent of his budget toward street posters and yard signs, but spent minimally beyond that, devoting less than two percent of his budget toward radio advertising and even less toward direct mail promotion.
Adams also focused on television advertising, but he strongly mixed in public relations as well. McDonald, on the other hand, set his sights on direct mail and yard signs, apparently catering to an older audience.
The main difference between the previous race and this year’s is that the amount of money received increased greatly. The overall funding for this year’s race was up nearly 28 percent from four years ago. Adams had the greatest percent increase for his particular campaign at 82 percent, followed closely by McDonald with 75 percent. Smith was the only candidate to earn less money in this year’s election.
Interest group contributions played a large part in the candidates’ success, with Save Our Planet Group contributing the most overall money to this year’s election at nearly $20 million. The Teachers’ Union gave 12 million to various candidates while the Police Union donated just over 5 million to the candidates’ causes.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Excel Story
Interest groups have been working hard—but for who’s interests?
Interest groups put forth a great deal of money in the year 2000, not toward advocating what they stand for, but toward endorsing and supporting candidates that seem to be willing to take action that benefits the groups, making themselves and the candidates the ones who are actually benefiting.
Interest groups gave large monetary contributions that went toward television ads, direct mailings, posters, and other publicity material that endorsed the candidates they each support. The single largest contribution was made by the Save Our Planet Group, which donated $1,075,837 to Adams.
The same group was also responsible for the second largest contribution of $1,075,827 for Peterson. These large sums of money make the Teacher’s Union’s contribution of $1,515 for Smith seem meager, but it is a considerable amount of money nevertheless. In total, the six candidates received $37,245,075 in endorsements from interest groups.
The total amount of contributions that Peterson received was $11,931,499. McDonald comes in second with a total amount of $9,311,066 in endorsements from interest groups. Adams received a total of $8,607,008. Thurston received a considerably smaller amount of only $3,599,413, with Johnson following close behind with a total of $2,073,212 in interest group endorsements. Smith comes in last with a total of only $1,722,877.
On average, each interest group gave $170,450 to Peterson with Adams trailing close behind with an average contribution amount of $153,692. McDonald received the third largest amount in endorsements from interest groups of $102,375. Interest groups gave an average amount of $95,700 to Thurston and $74,043 to Johnson. The average amount the groups gave to smith was only $49,225 which is a very long stretch from the average amount each group gave to candidates such as Peterson, Adams, and McDonald.
The results of the 2000 election show a direct relationship with the amount of money that each candidate received in endorsements from interest groups. Adams, McDonald, and Peterson, who were the top three candidates to receive the largest amounts of money in endorsements, all won their elections.
Johnson, Smith, and Thurston, on the other hand, all lost their elections. These three candidates were also the three candidates who received the lowest amounts of money in endorsements from interest groups.
The relationship between the amount of money given in endorsements by each groups to each candidate and the results of the elections show that the interest groups actually had an impact on the results themselves through their endorsements.
Interest groups put forth a great deal of money in the year 2000, not toward advocating what they stand for, but toward endorsing and supporting candidates that seem to be willing to take action that benefits the groups, making themselves and the candidates the ones who are actually benefiting.
Interest groups gave large monetary contributions that went toward television ads, direct mailings, posters, and other publicity material that endorsed the candidates they each support. The single largest contribution was made by the Save Our Planet Group, which donated $1,075,837 to Adams.
The same group was also responsible for the second largest contribution of $1,075,827 for Peterson. These large sums of money make the Teacher’s Union’s contribution of $1,515 for Smith seem meager, but it is a considerable amount of money nevertheless. In total, the six candidates received $37,245,075 in endorsements from interest groups.
The total amount of contributions that Peterson received was $11,931,499. McDonald comes in second with a total amount of $9,311,066 in endorsements from interest groups. Adams received a total of $8,607,008. Thurston received a considerably smaller amount of only $3,599,413, with Johnson following close behind with a total of $2,073,212 in interest group endorsements. Smith comes in last with a total of only $1,722,877.
On average, each interest group gave $170,450 to Peterson with Adams trailing close behind with an average contribution amount of $153,692. McDonald received the third largest amount in endorsements from interest groups of $102,375. Interest groups gave an average amount of $95,700 to Thurston and $74,043 to Johnson. The average amount the groups gave to smith was only $49,225 which is a very long stretch from the average amount each group gave to candidates such as Peterson, Adams, and McDonald.
The results of the 2000 election show a direct relationship with the amount of money that each candidate received in endorsements from interest groups. Adams, McDonald, and Peterson, who were the top three candidates to receive the largest amounts of money in endorsements, all won their elections.
Johnson, Smith, and Thurston, on the other hand, all lost their elections. These three candidates were also the three candidates who received the lowest amounts of money in endorsements from interest groups.
The relationship between the amount of money given in endorsements by each groups to each candidate and the results of the elections show that the interest groups actually had an impact on the results themselves through their endorsements.
Monday, April 7, 2008
David Copley Profile by Anna Iskandarian
The Philanthropist Living in Style
Adopted into one of the most prominent families in San Diego, David C. Copley has now turned into one of San Diego’s most prominent philanthropists and spenders.
After the Copley Press sold its other papers in Illinois and Ohio to maintain control and stability, David began investing his time and money in more charitable ways, donating to political campaigns, the Lost Squadron Museum, $3 million to the Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego, and even $5 million to Sharp Memorial Hospital where he underwent heart transplant surgery in 2005.
But this philanthropist, publisher of the San Diego Union- Tribune, Chairman, Chief Executive officer, and President of the Copley Press., does not live in discomfort; he ranked in Forbes 400 richest Americans in 2005 and 2006 and is in the process of expanding his mansion in La Jolla.
Even now, when Copley travels, he doesn’t cut back like the Copley Press, his splurges on his trips to Paris and Zurich, from the fine food to the $1200 rooms he stays in and he cruises with friends on his yacht called Happy Days, the largest composite yacht ever made in the Americas.
Adopted into one of the most prominent families in San Diego, David C. Copley has now turned into one of San Diego’s most prominent philanthropists and spenders.
After the Copley Press sold its other papers in Illinois and Ohio to maintain control and stability, David began investing his time and money in more charitable ways, donating to political campaigns, the Lost Squadron Museum, $3 million to the Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego, and even $5 million to Sharp Memorial Hospital where he underwent heart transplant surgery in 2005.
But this philanthropist, publisher of the San Diego Union- Tribune, Chairman, Chief Executive officer, and President of the Copley Press., does not live in discomfort; he ranked in Forbes 400 richest Americans in 2005 and 2006 and is in the process of expanding his mansion in La Jolla.
Even now, when Copley travels, he doesn’t cut back like the Copley Press, his splurges on his trips to Paris and Zurich, from the fine food to the $1200 rooms he stays in and he cruises with friends on his yacht called Happy Days, the largest composite yacht ever made in the Americas.
CAPRA Letter by Anna Iskandarian
March 27, 2008
Jeff Stumble
Metropolitan Transit System
1255 Imperial AvenueSan Diego, CA 92101
Dear Mr. Mathis,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency:
· The disciplinary records of the bus drivers in the San Diego district from 2000 forward.
I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the records in question
If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed. If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me aiskanda@ptloma.edu.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Anna Iskandarian
Student Journalist
San Diego, CA 92107
Jeff Stumble
Metropolitan Transit System
1255 Imperial AvenueSan Diego, CA 92101
Dear Mr. Mathis,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency:
· The disciplinary records of the bus drivers in the San Diego district from 2000 forward.
I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the records in question
If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed. If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me aiskanda@ptloma.edu.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Anna Iskandarian
Student Journalist
San Diego, CA 92107
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
CaPRA Letter
February 20, 2008
Robert Valderrama
Secretary
Port of San Diego
P.O. Box 120488
San Diego, CA 92112-0488
Public Records Act Request
Dear Mr. Valderrama,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency.
-Financial records from the last three years—from 2005 to present—particularly those that outline any and all grants received by your organization.
I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the records in question.
If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed. If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at 360.969.3014. I am sending a copy of this letter to your legal advisor to help encourage a speedy determination, and I would likewise be happy to discuss my request with [him/her] at any time. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Regards,
Heather McClure
The Point Weekly
Robert Valderrama
Secretary
Port of San Diego
P.O. Box 120488
San Diego, CA 92112-0488
Public Records Act Request
Dear Mr. Valderrama,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency.
-Financial records from the last three years—from 2005 to present—particularly those that outline any and all grants received by your organization.
I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the records in question.
If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed. If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at 360.969.3014. I am sending a copy of this letter to your legal advisor to help encourage a speedy determination, and I would likewise be happy to discuss my request with [him/her] at any time. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Regards,
Heather McClure
The Point Weekly
John Moores Profile
John Moores
On top of his public recognition as the majority owner of San Diego’s professional baseball team, John Moores is active in the community and widely known for contributions and affiliations across the board. But he, just like everybody else, has a few skeletons in his closet—including divorce and fraud.
OR
He’s a widely known member of the San Diego community for his status as an owner of the multimillion dollar Padres, the Major League Baseball team that calls San Diego home; he is extensively recognized for his numerous philanthropic efforts, particularly in the San Diego area; still, his record has been tainted with recent fraud speculation for his affiliation with Peregrine Systems, for which he is the former chairman.
Moores was dismissed of charges last December in a case against him from 2002. In a case filed against San Diego software developer Peregrine Systems, for
which Moores was the company’s largest single investor, he became the center of the lawsuit—large in part because he owned and/or controlled two-thirds of the company and also served as chairman of the company for some time. In May 2002, the company disclosed financial irregularities which led to “one of San Diego’s biggest corporate accounting scandals.” Investor losses are estimated to be somewhere in the billions.
By 2001, though, Moores had sold most of his ownership in the business; more than $600 million worth of shares were sold during the fraud. In his sales, investors argued that Moores and others knew of the fraud and violated their duties in their neglecting to inform other investors. Although 17 people had cases filed against them, Moores himself did not have any directly filed in his name. Because there is no proof that Moores was aware of what was going on at the company, the case against him is not very strong and, therefore, his involvement has been dismissed from the investigation.
Additional Reporting:
Moores, current majority owner of the San Diego Padres, was born and raised in Corpus Christi, Texas to a low-income family. He started his university education at Texas A&M University, but quit before completion. Instead, he became a computer programmer for IBM. He returned to his university education later, earning a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from the University of Houston. It wasn’t until 1994, after several years working with computer software, that Moores purchased the San Diego Padres from Tom Werner.
Most recently, Moores and his wife Rebecca have divorced. Court records show files submitted by Rebecca against John in late 2007, after more than 44 years of marriage, for which she claimed irreconcilable differences. Public records do not show how assets will be divided although, in California, a spouse is entitled to half of all community property—community property being “assets acquired or income earned by a married person while living with his or her spouse.”
Since 1994, John has owned 80 percent of the Padres, worth a reported $80 million. And, according to Forbes magazine, his estimated net worth is close to $750 million—the team’s worth estimated at more than $360 million. In addition to his majority ownership of the Padres, John is also chairman of JMI Realty, the developer of the Petco Park district.
John and his then wife Rebecca, who were married in 1963, donated $21 million to establish the John and Rebecca Moores Cancer Center at the University of California San Diego among a number of other philanthropic efforts. The Moores family has also supported the ACLU, the San Diego Zoo, San Diego State University, the San Diego Symphony Orchestra, San Diego Center for Children, St. Vincent de Paul Villages, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Scripps Research Institute for Children and Neglected Diseases.
As far as contributions are concerned, Moores gave $51 million to the University of Houston in 1991—the largest in U.S. history to a public university—as well as $21 million to the University of San Diego and over $20 million to San Diego State University.
Furthermore, Moores’ recorded campaign contributions for 2007 alone add up to $320,300—for which records show the bulk of his contributions supporting the Democratic Party.
Sources:
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/grantorgrantee/search.aspx
LexisNexis
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_41/b3803060.htm
San Diego Union Tribune Articles
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20071207-9999-1b7peregrine.html
http://search.marquiswhoswho.com/executable/SearchResults.aspx?db=E
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?si=20065&d=11507226
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1012893&session=2007
http://www.sandiego.gov//city-clerk/officialdocs/index.shtml
On top of his public recognition as the majority owner of San Diego’s professional baseball team, John Moores is active in the community and widely known for contributions and affiliations across the board. But he, just like everybody else, has a few skeletons in his closet—including divorce and fraud.
OR
He’s a widely known member of the San Diego community for his status as an owner of the multimillion dollar Padres, the Major League Baseball team that calls San Diego home; he is extensively recognized for his numerous philanthropic efforts, particularly in the San Diego area; still, his record has been tainted with recent fraud speculation for his affiliation with Peregrine Systems, for which he is the former chairman.
Moores was dismissed of charges last December in a case against him from 2002. In a case filed against San Diego software developer Peregrine Systems, for
which Moores was the company’s largest single investor, he became the center of the lawsuit—large in part because he owned and/or controlled two-thirds of the company and also served as chairman of the company for some time. In May 2002, the company disclosed financial irregularities which led to “one of San Diego’s biggest corporate accounting scandals.” Investor losses are estimated to be somewhere in the billions.
By 2001, though, Moores had sold most of his ownership in the business; more than $600 million worth of shares were sold during the fraud. In his sales, investors argued that Moores and others knew of the fraud and violated their duties in their neglecting to inform other investors. Although 17 people had cases filed against them, Moores himself did not have any directly filed in his name. Because there is no proof that Moores was aware of what was going on at the company, the case against him is not very strong and, therefore, his involvement has been dismissed from the investigation.
Additional Reporting:
Moores, current majority owner of the San Diego Padres, was born and raised in Corpus Christi, Texas to a low-income family. He started his university education at Texas A&M University, but quit before completion. Instead, he became a computer programmer for IBM. He returned to his university education later, earning a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from the University of Houston. It wasn’t until 1994, after several years working with computer software, that Moores purchased the San Diego Padres from Tom Werner.
Most recently, Moores and his wife Rebecca have divorced. Court records show files submitted by Rebecca against John in late 2007, after more than 44 years of marriage, for which she claimed irreconcilable differences. Public records do not show how assets will be divided although, in California, a spouse is entitled to half of all community property—community property being “assets acquired or income earned by a married person while living with his or her spouse.”
Since 1994, John has owned 80 percent of the Padres, worth a reported $80 million. And, according to Forbes magazine, his estimated net worth is close to $750 million—the team’s worth estimated at more than $360 million. In addition to his majority ownership of the Padres, John is also chairman of JMI Realty, the developer of the Petco Park district.
John and his then wife Rebecca, who were married in 1963, donated $21 million to establish the John and Rebecca Moores Cancer Center at the University of California San Diego among a number of other philanthropic efforts. The Moores family has also supported the ACLU, the San Diego Zoo, San Diego State University, the San Diego Symphony Orchestra, San Diego Center for Children, St. Vincent de Paul Villages, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Scripps Research Institute for Children and Neglected Diseases.
As far as contributions are concerned, Moores gave $51 million to the University of Houston in 1991—the largest in U.S. history to a public university—as well as $21 million to the University of San Diego and over $20 million to San Diego State University.
Furthermore, Moores’ recorded campaign contributions for 2007 alone add up to $320,300—for which records show the bulk of his contributions supporting the Democratic Party.
Sources:
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/grantorgrantee/search.aspx
LexisNexis
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_41/b3803060.htm
San Diego Union Tribune Articles
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20071207-9999-1b7peregrine.html
http://search.marquiswhoswho.com/executable/SearchResults.aspx?db=E
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/contributor.phtml?si=20065&d=11507226
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1012893&session=2007
http://www.sandiego.gov//city-clerk/officialdocs/index.shtml
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
San Diego Minutemen Founder Buried in Lawsuits
Ashly McGlone
Final Draft: Public Figure Background
Jeffrey Alan Schwilk has been in the public eye numerous times in the last few years; most often in a negative light. Allegations of domestic violence, violation of civil rights, and defamation, whether founded or not, have all tarnished Schwilk’s public image and the image of the San Diego Minutemen.
A USMC veteran, Schwilk founded the San Diego Minutemen (SDMM) in October of 2005. The SDMM headquarters are in
Schwilk was born on February 4, 1964 in
A search of the San Diego Court Index produces two domestic and three civil suit filings against Schwilk.
Guilie Anne Schwilk filed for dissolution of marriage on 10/31/05. A second domestic suit filed on 5/15/07 by Christie Janelle Czajkowski claims domestic violence; Czajkowski also filed a civil suit against Schwilk on 3/7/07. A civil defamation suit filed on 03/22/07 by Joanne Yoon, names Schwilk co-defendant alongside Ray Carney, a former supporter of the SDMM. Another case filed 10/11/2007 by five plaintiffs (primary Jose Balzaga) claims violation of civil rights and names Schwilk as co-defendant alongside Fox News.
Allegations stemming from “the
Bibliography:
www.sdarcc.com/arcc/online_services.aspx
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowLpllcList
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/
http://www.people-finders.ws/Summary.asp?vw=people&input=name&fn=J&mn=&ln=Schwilk&city=&state=CA
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/grantorgrantee/search.aspx
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/page?_pageid=55,1056871&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
http://www.youtube.com/SDMinutemen
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/09/opinion/commentary/4807161107.txt (Ray Carney leaves)
No results returned from Who’s Who website:
http://search.marquiswhoswho.com/executable/Search.aspx?db=E
Accurint Report- Jeff Schwilk (pdf)
California Board of Registered Nursing: Request for Revocation Records
13 March 2008
Licensee Services and General Info Clerk
RE: Public Records Act Request
Dear Ms. Shannan Borton,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of electronic records relating to licensed individuals, which I understand to be held by your agency. Specifically I am requesting information pertaining to:
• All revoked and voluntarily surrendered RN licenses from 2005-2007
• The disciplinary cause for each revoked individual or individual who surrendered their license respectively, including name of license holder, reason for revocation or surrender, and date of revocation or surrender.
• I am not requesting the records containing revocations stayed license probation only.
This position is consistent with the Act as it has been interpreted. If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.
If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Ashly McGlone
Point Weekly Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Tracy Jarman Backgrounding
Lauren Ruef
Electronic Journalism
January 28, 2008
Electronic Journalism
January 28, 2008
Tracy Jarman has confronted opposition as San Diego’s first female fire chief in more ways than one. The recent controversy she faced with the participation of her department in a gay pride parade in July of 2007, and the subsequent lawsuit that followed has increased public awareness of her presence.
Serving as Fire chief for the city of San Diego since 2006, Tracy Jarman has felt the backdraft of a different kind of storm than the one which engulfed Southern California in late October. Jarman, an open lesbian who resides in Del Mar with her partner Marcia Bonini, faced the complaints of four firefighters under her jurisdiction who produced a law suit against the City of San Diego Fire-Rescue Department on August 1, 2007, claiming to have been forced to participate in a gay pride parade of the previous month .
Sexual harassment complaints were filed by John C. Ghiotto, Jason Hewitt, Chad S. Allison and Alexander R. Kane, who claimed to have been subjected to lewd remarks and inappropriate gestures while serving in the parade against their will. In the lawsuit, these men stated that their battalion chief gave them a direct order to ride in the parade, and they obeyed out of fear that refusal to do so would lead to disciplinary action.
Jarman was not explicitly named in this lawsuit; however she made a public statement of apology on behalf of the department for this incident. She said, “I am deeply concerned and troubled by the allegations that have been made. I take them seriously."
The four firefighters reportedly asked the city for $750,000 each in compensation, as confirmed by two sources informed on the proceedings. Since August of 2007, a new policy has been negotiated between Jarman and the local firefighters union that department members involved in any subsequent parades will volunteer their participation and receive 4 hours of overtime pay. The civil suit has entered into mediation and is currently undergoing litigation between parties.
Sources Consulted
San Diego Union Tribune Website: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061217/news_lz1c17chief.html
San Diego Magazine Website: http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/media/San-Diego-Magazine/January-2008/Tracy-Jarman/
San Diego Metropolitan Uptown Examiner & Daily Business Report
http://sandiegometro.com/dbr/index.php?dbrID=1098
http://sandiegometro.com/dbr/index.php?dbrID=1098
Santee CaPRA
February 26, 2008
Linda Troyan
City Clerk
City Clerk’s OfficeCity of Santee
10601 Magnolia, Building #3
Santee, CA 92071
Subject: Public Records Act Request
Dear Ms. Troyan,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain an electronic copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency:
· A record of all of the City of Santee’s contracts over $1,000 from January 1, 2005 until December 31, 2007.
I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the records in question.
If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.
If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me by phone at 619-977-7638 or via e-mail at mgilson100@pointloma.edu. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gilson
Student Journalist
Santee, CA 92071
Linda Troyan
City Clerk
City Clerk’s OfficeCity of Santee
10601 Magnolia, Building #3
Santee, CA 92071
Subject: Public Records Act Request
Dear Ms. Troyan,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain an electronic copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency:
· A record of all of the City of Santee’s contracts over $1,000 from January 1, 2005 until December 31, 2007.
I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the records in question.
If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.
If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me by phone at 619-977-7638 or via e-mail at mgilson100@pointloma.edu. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gilson
Student Journalist
Santee, CA 92071
Monday, March 17, 2008
Bill Walton Profile
Bill Walton
William Theodore Walton III has compiled an extensive history of political activism. He was arrested for his participation in a 1972 anti-Vietnam War rally, has consistently donated money to Democratic congressional and presidential candidates, and currently serves as campaign chair for Rick Metsger’s bid for the Democratic nomination for Oregon’s Secretary of State.
But Walton – who goes by “Bill” – is most famous for his prowess on the basketball court. Named one of the 50 best players of all time, Walton is one of the few athletes of his caliber to have ever been so vocal about his social and political views.
Born to William and Gloria on November 5, 1952, in San Diego, Calif, he starred at Helix High School and went on to UCLA, where both his talents and his ideologies began to receive a lot of attention. It The aforementioned anti-war rally occurred during his time at UCLA. He was selected by the Portland Trailblazers with the first pick in the 1974 NBA draft, and continued to play until 1988.
Since retiring from the NBA, Walton has stayed highly involved in athletics. He has worked as a sports broadcaster since 1990, and has become one of the premier color commentators for basketball games.
Walton’s political interests have continued as well. The list of candidates that he has donated to includes John Edwards, John Kerry, Bob Filner, Bill Bradley and Bernard Sanders. Walton met Rick Metsger in 1977, when Metsger was working as a broadcaster covering the Trailblazers. The two have remained connected ever since, with Walton now taking the position of Metsger’s campaign chair.
Walton appears to have owned a house at 1010 Myrtle Way in San Diego since 1979. He lived there with his wife, Susan Kay, until their divorce in 1991. He and Susan had four boys – Adam, Nathan, Luke and Chris. Luke currently plays basketball in the NBA for the Los Angeles Lakers. Walton has since married Lori Matsuoka, and the two still live in San Diego.
Walton has been involved in a few corporations. Bill Walton, Inc.; Walton Presentations LLC and Triple Bogey Broadcasting, a California Limited Partnership, all report the 1010 Myrtle Way residence as their address. Adam Walton Properties, LLC, presumably started by Walton’s son Adam, is also associated with both Walton’s name and the 1010 Myrtle home.
Sites:
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowLpllcAllList?QueryLpllcNumber=200228910137
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/grantorgrantee/search.aspx
http://search.marquiswhoswho.com/executable/SearchLog.aspx
http://www.switchboard.com/
http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=73
By: Matthew Gilson
William Theodore Walton III has compiled an extensive history of political activism. He was arrested for his participation in a 1972 anti-Vietnam War rally, has consistently donated money to Democratic congressional and presidential candidates, and currently serves as campaign chair for Rick Metsger’s bid for the Democratic nomination for Oregon’s Secretary of State.
But Walton – who goes by “Bill” – is most famous for his prowess on the basketball court. Named one of the 50 best players of all time, Walton is one of the few athletes of his caliber to have ever been so vocal about his social and political views.
Born to William and Gloria on November 5, 1952, in San Diego, Calif, he starred at Helix High School and went on to UCLA, where both his talents and his ideologies began to receive a lot of attention. It The aforementioned anti-war rally occurred during his time at UCLA. He was selected by the Portland Trailblazers with the first pick in the 1974 NBA draft, and continued to play until 1988.
Since retiring from the NBA, Walton has stayed highly involved in athletics. He has worked as a sports broadcaster since 1990, and has become one of the premier color commentators for basketball games.
Walton’s political interests have continued as well. The list of candidates that he has donated to includes John Edwards, John Kerry, Bob Filner, Bill Bradley and Bernard Sanders. Walton met Rick Metsger in 1977, when Metsger was working as a broadcaster covering the Trailblazers. The two have remained connected ever since, with Walton now taking the position of Metsger’s campaign chair.
Walton appears to have owned a house at 1010 Myrtle Way in San Diego since 1979. He lived there with his wife, Susan Kay, until their divorce in 1991. He and Susan had four boys – Adam, Nathan, Luke and Chris. Luke currently plays basketball in the NBA for the Los Angeles Lakers. Walton has since married Lori Matsuoka, and the two still live in San Diego.
Walton has been involved in a few corporations. Bill Walton, Inc.; Walton Presentations LLC and Triple Bogey Broadcasting, a California Limited Partnership, all report the 1010 Myrtle Way residence as their address. Adam Walton Properties, LLC, presumably started by Walton’s son Adam, is also associated with both Walton’s name and the 1010 Myrtle home.
Sites:
http://www.vitalsearch-ca.com/
http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/portal/
http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowLpllcAllList?QueryLpllcNumber=200228910137
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/arcc/services/grantorgrantee/search.aspx
http://search.marquiswhoswho.com/executable/SearchLog.aspx
http://www.switchboard.com/
http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=73
By: Matthew Gilson
Profile: Miles McPherson
Looking at Miles McPherson today, one wouldn’t think the 47-year-old pastor of
McPherson was born in
While on the Chargers, McPherson began using cocaine with his teammates, spending thousands of dollars on the illegal substance and “robbing [him] of a great life.” It wasn’t until fellow Charger Sherman Smith told him about Jesus Christ that he began to turn his life around. After an eight-year struggle with drug addiction, McPherson quit both his habit and the team and became a youth pastor at Horizon Christian Fellowship in September 1986.
In 1992, McPherson founded Miles Ahead Ministries (formerly called Project Intercept), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose mission it is to “preach the gospel to young people, all young people everywhere,” says McPherson. In 2005, Miles Ahead took in over $500,000 in direct public support and funded the making of a documentary film called “Four Stories Tall” (priced at $155,271) to tell about the struggles youth go through with drug addiction, alcohol abuse and poverty.
McPherson has also established
McPherson currently lives with his wife, Debra, and three daughters (Kelly, Kimmie and Margaret) in the Poway,
By Steve Paine
Lauren's CAPRA Letter
February 26, 2008
Mr. Walter George
Chief Human Resources Officer
Palomar Pomerado Hospital
15615 Pomerado Road
Poway, CA 92064
RE: Public Records Act Request
Dear Mr. George,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency: the disciplinary action records of doctors, nurses and orderlies at your institution since the year 2000 and forward. The information disclosed should include the name of the offender, date of the action taken, the nature of the offense, the amount of the fine issued, and whether or not the offender’s license was revoked as a result.
I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the record[s] in question.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.
If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at the email address or phone number provided below. To help encourage a speedy determination, I would likewise be happy to discuss my request your legal advisor at any time.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Lauren Ruef
Student Journalist
San Diego, CA 92106
Mr. Walter George
Chief Human Resources Officer
Palomar Pomerado Hospital
15615 Pomerado Road
Poway, CA 92064
RE: Public Records Act Request
Dear Mr. George,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency: the disciplinary action records of doctors, nurses and orderlies at your institution since the year 2000 and forward. The information disclosed should include the name of the offender, date of the action taken, the nature of the offense, the amount of the fine issued, and whether or not the offender’s license was revoked as a result.
I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the record[s] in question.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.
If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at the email address or phone number provided below. To help encourage a speedy determination, I would likewise be happy to discuss my request your legal advisor at any time.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Lauren Ruef
Student Journalist
San Diego, CA 92106
CaPRA Request - SDUSD Payroll Records
Sandra Huezo
Director for Certificated Personnel
RE: Public Records Act Request
Dear Ms. Huezo,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and Proposition 59, I ask to obtain a copy of electronic payroll records relating to the
· Any and all payroll data for fiscal years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 pertaining to SDUSD high school teachers and administrators.
· Data should include, but not necessarily be limited to: employee’s name, position, high school, subject taught (if a teacher), total compensation, regular pay rate, number of regular hours worked, sick pay leave, vacation pay and holiday pay.
· Please also include any and all internal documentation, such as a data dictionary and record layout that explains and defines fields, their content or structure.
I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the record[s] in question.
If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested.
In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.
If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at spaine100@pointloma.edu or 949-690-2803.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Steven Paine
Opinion Editor, The Point Weekly
City Council President Scott H. Peters: Environmentalist or Water Waster
Scott H. Peters: City Council President
Despite his admirable record of support for environmental causes, Scott H. Peters has stepped on a few toes in recent years with his own wasteful and ignorant habits. Criticized both for gross water waste in his private La Jolla residence in 2007 and for his handling of the City Council pension mess in the same year, Peters has garnered negative feedback particularly within the last year.
In November 2005, Peters was unanimously selected by the San Diego Council as the City’s first Council President. A long history of involvement with politics, law and environmental causes finally landed Peters in his current position as San Diego’s first city council president, after serving two consecutive terms on the Council.
Peters has donated his share to major Democratic Presidential campaigns. In March 2007, he donated $2300 to Barack Obama and gave twice the sum to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In April 2007, he donated $2000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Peters was born on June 9, 1960. After earning degrees from Duke University and NYU, Peters spent a year in Washington D.C. on the United States Environmental Protection Agency. He began a law practice in 1984 with Dorsey and Whitney, and moved to San Diego in 1989 with his wife, Lynn E. Gorguze. In 1996, Peters opened his own environmental law firm, Peters & Varco LLP. Lynn E Gorguze has been President and CEO of Cameron Holdings, a private equity company, since its inception in 1993.
Peters and his wife Lynn live in La Jolla with their daughter and son, where both he and his wife conduct business. Peters has owned a Community Property Trust with his wife since April of 1998. Peters is Episcopalian by religion.
Despite his admirable record of support for environmental causes, Scott H. Peters has stepped on a few toes in recent years with his own wasteful and ignorant habits. Criticized both for gross water waste in his private La Jolla residence in 2007 and for his handling of the City Council pension mess in the same year, Peters has garnered negative feedback particularly within the last year.
In November 2005, Peters was unanimously selected by the San Diego Council as the City’s first Council President. A long history of involvement with politics, law and environmental causes finally landed Peters in his current position as San Diego’s first city council president, after serving two consecutive terms on the Council.
Peters has donated his share to major Democratic Presidential campaigns. In March 2007, he donated $2300 to Barack Obama and gave twice the sum to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In April 2007, he donated $2000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Peters was born on June 9, 1960. After earning degrees from Duke University and NYU, Peters spent a year in Washington D.C. on the United States Environmental Protection Agency. He began a law practice in 1984 with Dorsey and Whitney, and moved to San Diego in 1989 with his wife, Lynn E. Gorguze. In 1996, Peters opened his own environmental law firm, Peters & Varco LLP. Lynn E Gorguze has been President and CEO of Cameron Holdings, a private equity company, since its inception in 1993.
Peters and his wife Lynn live in La Jolla with their daughter and son, where both he and his wife conduct business. Peters has owned a Community Property Trust with his wife since April of 1998. Peters is Episcopalian by religion.
CaPRA Request: Veterinary Board Discipline
February 26, 2008
Susan M. Geranen
Executive Director
Veterinary Medical Board Enforcement Unit
1420 Howe Avenue, Suite 6
Sacramento, CA 95825-3228
RE: Public Records Act Request
Dear Ms. Geranen,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of any and all records showing disciplinary action from 2004-present, which I understand to be held by your agency, including:
· Name of offenders
· Date of disciplinary action
· Nature of offense
· All disciplinary action taken, including exact fine amounts
Though I understand that enforcement records from 1996-2004 are provided on the Veterinary Medical Board website, I ask to obtain current records in database form for analysis purposes.
I respectfully ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the records in question. If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on whom you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.
If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at (209) 914-7778.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Rose Creasman
San Diego, CA 92106
Susan M. Geranen
Executive Director
Veterinary Medical Board Enforcement Unit
1420 Howe Avenue, Suite 6
Sacramento, CA 95825-3228
RE: Public Records Act Request
Dear Ms. Geranen,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain a copy of any and all records showing disciplinary action from 2004-present, which I understand to be held by your agency, including:
· Name of offenders
· Date of disciplinary action
· Nature of offense
· All disciplinary action taken, including exact fine amounts
Though I understand that enforcement records from 1996-2004 are provided on the Veterinary Medical Board website, I ask to obtain current records in database form for analysis purposes.
I respectfully ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the records in question. If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on whom you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.
If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at (209) 914-7778.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Rose Creasman
San Diego, CA 92106
Tracy Jarman Profile
Melissa Mattson
2/12/08
Public Figure Overview
Public Official: Tracy Jarman
Tracy Jarman has been the fire chief for the city of San Diego since June 26, 2006. She served as a fire fighter since 1984. She obtained a Fire Science degree from Mirmar College and a Masters in public administration from San Diego State University.
She is widely known as a public official and does much of the needed speaking on behalf of the fire departments in San Diego. She is the first female fire chief in San Diego and one of only two dozen in the US at all.
She’s worked in the department for 22 years and was considering retiring when the position for chief opened up and changed her mind. She heads up the second largest department in the country run by a woman.
She lives with her domestic partner, Marcia Bonini, in Del Mar.
LUNOW VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO --- is the only case filed against San Diego Fire Department during Jarman’s time there, done on July 27, 2007, one month after Tracy Jarman was appointed. GIC870009
No property was shown under the name Tracy Jarman, but 6 listings came up under Marcia Bonini; one trust deed, three reconveyances and two quitclaim deeds.
After searching through all the data bases provided for me this is all that I could find. I came to the conclusion that though Tracy Jarman is a high profile official she leads a very low key private life and does not have very much information that is on public record. My sources have been as listed below. I searched the first three sites before utilizing the record data bases given to me in class.
www.sandiegomagazine.com
www.sandiego.gov/fireandems/about/firechief
www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro
John Smith
People Profiling
Berta Annalisa & Tracy Jarman both Grantors to Shawmut First MTG Corp (Trust Deed)
Both grantees from accubanc MTG Corp (Reconveyance)
Jarman grantor to Annalisa (Deed)San Diego Sheriffs Department CaPRA Letter
February 26, 2008
Contract Manager
San Diego County Sheriff’s Department
P.O. Box 939062
San Diego, CA 92193-9062
RE: Public Records Act Request
Dear Mr. Spears,
Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain an electronic copy the following, which I understand to be held by your agency:
· Any and all electronic data of fines for noise for fiscal years from 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 for unincorporated areas and contracted jurisdictions.
· Data should include whether these fines were paid or contested.
I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you can make that determination without having to review the record[s] in question.
If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.
If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested. In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.
If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at 760-424-XXXX.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Melissa Mattson
San Diego, CA 92106
Business Backgrounding in San Diego Area
Melissa Mattson
Business Back Grounding
2/14/08
Sports Business:
San Diego Sports Arena is located at 3500 Sports Arena Blvd in San Diego. Their website address is http://sandiegoarena.com/. Their names, as listed on the Better Business Bureau, are San Diego Sports Arena, Arena Group 2000, San Diego Entertainment, and San Diego Gulls. Their original start date was the 1st of November in 1992. Their General Manager is Ernest Hahn.
The Sports Arena is not a BBB Accredited Business, they are however listed as having a satisfactory record with the Bureau and they have not had any customer complaints registered at the Bureau in their three year reporting period.
Their fiscal year ends in September and their sales in 2007 were approximately $20,000,000.00. They have 340 employees in total and all are at their location on Sports Arena Blvd.
No property records came up for San Diego Sports Arena but hundreds of documents came up when the search was run with Ernest Hahn’s name. Most of these dealt with the SD County Trust and various building contractors and businesses.
There are over fifty civil court cases against San Diego Sports Arena. Very few of these are solely against San Diego Sports Arena and most were filed for various civil reasons, a few for personal injury, and at least one for wrongful imprisonment.
Non-Profit Business:
The Big Sister League of San Diego is located at 115 Redwood Street in San Diego. Their website is http://www.bigsisterleague.org. The Big Sister League contains the Big Sister League and the Big Sister League Residency. The agent for both is Rozelle Washburn who lives on Reservoir Drive. The League Residency is located at 3360 Fourth Ave in San Diego.
The Big Sister League was begun in 1942 and is not accredited by the Better Business Bureau. In its three year reporting period the BBB has processed no customer complaints about this business.
There are fifteen property document records for the Big Sister League of San Diego. These documents deal with a variety of other companies or people including: the city of San Diego; Delaware G P O 5 Inc; Mercurio Bernard J & Vita; Bank America Tr and Glore Arthur (AKA Arthur Lee Est); American Contractors Indemnity Co; USA Housing and Urban Devel; West End Financial Corp, Winn Peter J Inc, Cushman Mitchell, Sluka Sylvester D Tr, Sluka Sylvester D Family Trust.
According to guidestar.com there are 14 board members for the League and 11-20 full time employees. They also have 1-5 part time, and 21-100 volunteers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)